The plaintiffs 4 and 5 in a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs, who lost their case before both the Courts below, are the appellants herein.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to one Muthu Pandaram. He had three sons, who are the defendants 1 and 2 and one Eswara Pandaram. The third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. On the demand for making an arrangement, at the time of the marriage of the third defendant with the second defendant, the second defendant executed a registered settlement deed on 6.1.1950 under Ex.A1 in respect of his undivided 1/3rd share in the property, wherein the third defendant has been given a life estate, and thereafter, the property should go to the heirs of the second and third defendants. The first defendant and the other brother Eswara Pandaram also gave their consent. The said settlement deed came into force. The second and third defendants left the property in the hands of the first defendant and went away. Even having the thorough knowledge of the settlement deed, the defendants were making attempts to dispose of the property and were making alienation thereon. In such circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing the suit for the said reliefs.

3. The defendants 2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the trial Court. The suit was resisted by the first defendant stating that the property originally belonged to Muthu Pandaram; that on his death, the property came to the hands of the first and second defendants and their brother Eswara Pandaram and their mother Shanmugathammal; that the alleged settlement deed dated 6.1.1950 is not valid in law, since the second defendant could not execute such a settlement deed in respect of his undivided share in the joint family properties; that it is not correct on the part of the plaintiffs to state that the settlement deed came into force and they were enjoying the respective shares; that the first defendant purchased the undivided share of Eswara Pandaram; that he also constructed a house therein; that he has dealt with the properties, according to the rights, and thus, the suit claim was to be rejected.

4. The trial Court framed the necessary issues, tried the suit and dismissed the same. On appeal by the plaintiffs 4 and 5, their case was also rejected by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal has arisen before this Court.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court:

(1) Whether the first defendant, witness to Ex.A1, a registered document, can deny knowledge and signing of Ex.A1?

(2) Whether Ex.A1, which provides to the 3rd defendant, only a joint right of enjoyment with the second defendant for life, can be construed as an absolute gift of an undivided interest in coparcenary property?

6. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and also the learned Counsel for the first respondent on those contentions.

7. As could be seen from the rival contentions, the whole case rests upon the validity of the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A1, alleged to have been executed by the second defendant in favour of his wife, the third defendant on 6.1.1950. A reading of the document would clearly reveal that nothing was referred to therein as to the maintenance. It is not in controversy that the property originally belonged to Muthu Pandaram, who had three sons namely the defendants 1 and 2 and one Eswara Pandaram. The witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff, went to the extent of stating that there was an oral division of property before the execution of the document in question. But, it has been rightly rejected by the Courts below, since it was not proved. That apart, it went against the document, under which the plaintiff claimed the relief. The document would contain a recital to the effect that the property is a joint one, and the settlement deed was executed by the secon